http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KISHAN DAS & ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/1968

BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. SHELAT, J.M. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA

CITATION:  1969 AIR  386            1969 SCR  (2) 166  CITATOR INFO :  R          1973 SC 921  (13)

ACT: Delhi  Municipal Corporation Act (66 of 1957), ss.  336  and 380-Sanction  of  building  plans-Powers  of   refusal-Delhi Development Act (61  of  1957),  s.  14-Master Plan prepared but no Zonal Plan prepared-Violation of Master  Plan-Whether use of land prohibited.

HEADNOTE: The Commissioner of the appellant (Municipal Corporation  of Delhi)  issued  notice to the respondents stating  that  the building  owned by them posed a danger to the  residents  of the  area  and  that necessary repairs may  be  carried  out immediately  after  obtaining  sanction.   The   respondents thereupon  submitted  plans  to  the  Corporation  but   the Commissioner of the Corporation refused the sanction on  the ground  that the land belonging to me respondents  would  be covered by a road proposed in the Master Plan prepared  .by. the  Delhi Development Authority.  The respondents  filed  a writ  petition in the High Court praying for a direction  to the  Corporation  to accord the sanction.   The  High  Court allowed  the petition, holding that the  Commissioner  could decline the sanction only if there was a contravention of s. 336(2)  or s. 340 of Delhi Municipal Corporation  Act,  1957 and  that in this case there was no such contravention.   In appeal  to  this  Court, the appellant  contended  that  the Commissioner  was, trader s. 336(2) (a), entitled to  refuse sanction  of a building or work if the building or  work  or use  of the site for building or work contravened any  other law’,  that  the Master Plan prepared had come  into  effect under   the  Development  Act  and  that  as  the   proposed construction would not be in conformity with the Master Plan it would contravene s. 14 of the Development Act. HELD: The appeal must fail.     The  provisions of s. 7 of the Development Act  indicate that  the Master Plan will only give a very  broad   outline of   the  Development Act that the moment a Master Plan  has come into operation and if it contains a proposal  regarding the width that a road should have, all use of land adjoining that road is prohibited for an indefinite period.  Under  s.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

14, if any particular and definite use of land is  indicated in  a  Master Plan, different use of that  land  cannot   be permitted.   Similarly,  if  a Zonal Development  Plan,  the preparation of which is mandatory under s. 8, provides for a particular use of any land or any building in that Zone,  it cannot  be put to a different use; if neither of  the  plans provide  for the particular use of any land or  building  in the   area  or   Zone,  s.  14  will  have  no   application whatsoever.     The respondents’ lands were not in any manner  indicated as being taken up by any part of the proposed road mentioned in  the  Master  Plan,  nor was  a  Zonal  Development  Plan prepared,  in  the  present case. Therefore,  there  was  no violation  of s. 14 of the Development Act and  hence  there was  no violation of ’any other law’ under s.  336(2)(a)  of the Corporation Act. [175 F--176G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal  No.  1049  of -1968. 167     Appeal by special leave from the order, dated August 11, 1967 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 85 of 1967. Niren  De, Solicitor-General, B.P. Maheshwari   and     R.K. Maheshwari, for the appellant. M.C. Chagla and Urmila Kapoor, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Vaidialingam,   J.   This  appeal,  by   the   Municipal Corporation of Delhi, by special leave, is directed  against the judgment and order, dated August 11, 1967 passed by  the High Court of Delhi High Court, dated May 10, 1967 whereby a writ  of  manda Patent Bench had confirmed an order  of  the learned Chief Justice, Delhi High Court, dated May 10,  1967 whereby a writ of Mandamus had been issued to the  appellant to approve the plans submitted by the respondents and  grant the sanction asked for. The circumstances leading up to the issue of  the  writ   of mandamus  against the appellant may be briefly adverted  to. The respondents are the owners and are. in possession of the building bearing municipal door Nos. 3766 to 3776,  situated in the main Chawri Bazar, Delhi. As the building was an  old construction  and required urgent and extensive repairs,  on October 16, 1965 the respondents submitted to the  appellant plans  for its sanction for execution of work consisting  of repairs,  additions  as  well as  alterations  to  the  said building.  The Commissioner of the appellant Corporation, by letter,  dated February 4,  1966  informed  the  respondents that  their application for execution of  construction  work in  respect of house Nos. 3766 to 3776 had been  refused  on the  grounds  "that the proposal was under  acquisition  and also  effected  in  the ROW and  the  land  was  residential against proposal of commercial".     A  controversy  appears  to  have  been  raised  by  the appellant before the High Court that the application, by the respondents,  related also. to certain other municipal  door numbers,  but  as  that  is not  material  for  the  present purpose,  we do not refer to the same. Attempts made by  the respondents   to   satisfy  the  Commissioner   that   their application was quite legal and that there was no  violation of  any  law or rules having failed, they filed  Civil  Writ Petition  No.  410-D  of 1966 in the Circuit  Bench  of  the Punjab   High  Court  at  Delhi,  under  Art.  226  of   the Constitution praying for the issue of an order or  direction

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

in the nature of mandamus directing the appellant to  accord sanction to the plan for execution of work in respect of the building.  as  per their application of  October  16,  1965. According  to  the  respondents it  was.  incumbent  on  the Commissioner  of the appellant, under s. 336 of  the   Delhi Municipal   Corporation  Act,  1957  (Act  LXVI   of   1957) (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Corporation  Act),   to sanction the plans of a building or 168 execution  of  a  work  unless  such  a  building  or   work contravened  any of the provisions, of sub-s. (2) of s.  336 or  s.  340 of the Corporation Act.  It was  further  stated that  the plan submitted by them did not contravene  any  of the  provisions  of sub-s. (2) of s. 336 or s.  340  of  the Corporation  Act.  The reasons given for rejection,  by  the Commissioner,  were  also challenged  as   being  vague  and unintelligible apart from being extraneous to the provisions of  the Act. The respondents further averred that the  build Lags  required  extensive  repairs. as was  clear  from  the notice, dated March 3, 1966, issued by the Commissioner   of the   appellant stating that the building posed a danger  to the residents of the area and that the necessary repairs had to be carried out immediately, after obtaining sanction from the building department, and threatening penal  consequences if the respondents did not comply with the notice.  On these grounds.  they urged that the order, dated February 4,  1966 passed  by the Commissioner refusing to accord sanction  was illegal  and ultra vires and in consequence they prayed  for the issue of a writ of mandamus  directing the  appellant to accord sanction, as asked for by them.     On  behalf of the appellant, the Assistant Engineer  had filed a counter affidavit.  The material averments, relevant for  the present purpose, are that the respondents  are  the owners of the premises and that the construction was old and required repairs; but the plans submitted by the respondents did not conform to bye-laws and contravened s. 336(2) (a) in respect   of  land  use  and  s.  340(2)  with  respect   to requisitioning  of land by the Delhi  Development  Authority for  their Scheme and that the plans were also  affected  by road widening.     In  their reply affidavit the  respondents  controverted the  averments of the Assistant Engineer that the plans  did not  conform to bye-laws or the provisions of s.  336(2)  or any  other  law in respect of land use.   They  stated  that according  to.  the  Master  Plan prepared under  the  Delhi Development Act, 1957 certain areas, including Chawri Bazar, would be the Central Business District of Delhi and that the proposed  user,  mentioned  by them in  the  plan  sent  for sanction  was not in contravention of the Master Plan.  They also  denied  that the Delhi Development Authority  had  any scheme for road widening. They further referred to a letter, dated  April  30, 1966 of the  Delhi  Development  Authority stating  that  the  Zonal  Development  Plan  has  not  been prepared  for the area in question. They finally  reiterated the  plea that the order refusing sanction was not based  on any  of  the  grounds  envisaged  by s. 336(2) or s. 340  or any  other provision of the Corporation Act or of any  other Act.     The  learned Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court,  who heard  the  writ  petition in the  first  instance,  by  his judgment and order 169 dated  May 10, 1967 accepted the writ petition filed by  the respondents  and  issued  a mandamus  to  the  appellant  to approve  the plans and grant the sanction asked  for’.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

learned  Chief  Justice  has expressed  the  view  that  the Commissioner could decline the sanction only if there was  a contravention  of  sub-s.  (2) of s. 336 or s.  340  of  the Corporation  Act.   In this case, according to  the  learned Chief  Justice, there was no such contravention  established by the appellant and if that were so the Commissioner had no power  to  refuse to accord the sanction asked  for  by  the respondents.  He was of the further view that the grounds on which   the  Commissioner  refused  sanction   were   wholly irrelevant  and  not  germane to  the  sanction  asked  for. Taking  the  further  view  that  the  Commissioner  had   a statutory duty to grant the sanction asked for, the  learned Chief  Justice directed the issue of  a  writ  of  mandamus. This  judgment  of the learned Chief  Justice  as  mentioned earlier, was affirmed by the judgment of the Letters  Patent Bench of the Delhi High Court, dated August 11, 1967.     The   learned  Solicitor  General,  on  behalf  of   the Corporation,  has urged that the order of  the  Commissioner refusing   sanction  is  legal  and  is  justified  by   the provisions,  of  cl.  (a) of sub-s. (2) of  s.  336  of  the Corporation  Act.  Even at the outset he has made  it  clear that he is relying upon only one of the grounds given in the order,  dated  February 4, 1966 of the  Commissioner,  viz., that  the  plan  submitted was  affected  by  the  proposals contained  in  the Master Plan in respect of widening of the read in  the  area  in question.  The expression ’ROW’  used in  the  order  refers  to ’right  of  way’  which  is  with reference  to the road proposed under the Master Plan.   The Master  Plan  has  been prepared under s.  7  of  the  Delhi Development  Act,  1957  (Act LXI  of  1957  )  (hereinafter referred  to  as the Development Act) and it has  come  into operation, under s. 11, in the area concerned.  The building operation  proposed  by  the respondents as  per  the  plans submitted by the:m will be contrary to. the Master Plan and, as  such, will be hit by s. 14 of the Development  Act.   In short,  the contention of the ]earned Solicitor  General  is that  the Master Plan prepared by the Authority  for  Delhi, which  has statutory force, has come into effect  under  the Development Act.  Under s. 336(2)(a) of the Corporation Act, the  Commissioner  is  entitled  to  refuse  sanction  of  a building or work if the building or work or use of the  site for  building or work would contravene ’any other law’.   As the  proposed construction would not be in  conformity  with the  Master  Plan,  s. 14 of the  Development  Act  will  be violated,  in  which case there will be a  contravention  of ’any other law’.  Hence the order of rejection passed by the Commissioner is legal and valid.     In   this  connection  the  learned  Solicitor   General referred us to the Master Plan wherein it is stated that the proposed road (in Chawri Bazar, which is the area with which we are concerned) CI-69---12 170 from Hauz Kazi to Jama Masjid is recommended to have a width of 60 feet.  The width of the existing road is only 48 feet. The object of the Development Act is to freeze new  building constructions  which  will be inconsistent with  the  Master Plan;  and,  if  the Master Plan mentions  the  width  of  a proposed road and the width of an existing road is less,  no new  construction will be permissible on either side of  the road  till the excess area required for the road  is  found. The Solicitor General has further urged that though a  Zonal Development  Plan for each of the Zones in which Delhi  will have to be divided will have also to be prepared and has not come  into operation for the zone  concerned,  nevertheless,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

till such a Zonal Development Plan comes into operation, the Master  Plan  will hold the field.  If a  Zonal  Development Plan comes into force and has made any alteration, the Zonal Development  Plan will then have effect and the Master  Plan will  stand  abridged  or modified. At present,  it  is  the Master Plan that holds the  field  and,  as according to  it an excess area of 12 feet for the proposed road will have to be  found,  all building operations on either  side  of  the proposed  road will have to come to a standstill.  That  is, the learned Solicitor General was prepared to take the stand that,  so  to  say,  there is a  freezing  of  all  building operations,  on  either  side of the  existing  road  which, according  to him, is warranted by s. 14 of the  Development Act.   In support of his contentions, the learned  Solicitor General  drew our attention to certain provisions  contained in the Corporation Act and the Development Act.     The  stand  taken by the learned Solicitor  General  has been  very  strenuously  controverted by  Mr.  M.C.  Chagla, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Chagla, apart  from criticising the order, dated August 11, 1967 as laconic  and unintelligible  and  not containing any  valid  reasons  has urged  that the  Master Plan,  so strongly relied on by  the learned  Solicitor General, does not, as such, refer to  the survey numbers in respect of which the respondents had asked for  sanction. Before the High Court the appellant  has  not relied upon the Master Plan nor did it place any material to show that any part of the proposed road shown in the  Master Plan  will  pass  through  any  of  the  properties  of  the respondents. The Master Plan prepared under the  Development Act is nothing but a broad outline of what Delhi would  look like,  in  future. The plan, which may  probably  give  more accurately  the  lands in the area which  are  reserved  for roads,  is  the Zonal Development Plan, the  preparation  of which  is  mandatory  under s. 8  of  the  Development  Act. Admittedly  no  such plan has been prepared, much  less  has come  into operation in the concerned zone.  So long as  the Master  Plan  does not state that any part of  the  property belonging to the respondents will be covered by the proposed road,  it  cannot be stated that when  the  respondents  are attempting to renovate the building they are using the  land in  the  zone otherwise than in conformity with  the  Master Plan. Mr. Chagla further points out 171 that if the contentions advanced on behalf of the  appellant are  accepted, the entire building operations in Delhi  will have  to  come to a standstill for an indefinite  number  of years and, according to him, that position is not  envisaged either  by  the  Master  Plan  or  the  provisions  of   the Development  Act.   He  finally  urged that  s.  14  of  the Development Act has no application at all.     From the contentions of both the parties set out  above, it  will  be  noticed that according  to  the  appellant  ii building operations are allowed to be carried on, there will be a violation of the Master Plan, and in consequence of the provisions  of  s.  14  of  the  Development  Act;  whereas, according to the respondent, there is no violation of either the Master Plan or any provisions of the Development Act  or of any other law.     A   reference   to  the  material  provisions   of   the Corporation Act and the Development Act, which will be  made by us presently, will clearly establish that the contentions of the learned Solicitor General cannot be accepted.     We shall first take up the provisions of the Corporation Act.  Section 332 prohibits the erection or commencement  of the  erection  of any building, or execution of any  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

works specified in s. 334, except with the previous sanction of  the Commissioner. Section 333 makes its mandatory  on  a person  intending  to  erect  a building  to  apply  to  the Commissioner in that behalf. Section 334 makes it obligatory on  a  person,  who  intends to execute  any  of  the  works mentioned   therein,   to   apply  for   sanction   to   the Commissioner.  Section 336 deals with sanction or refusal of building  or work.  It is only necessary to refer to  sub-s. (1)  and cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) of this section, because,  as we  have  already  stated, the order  of  rejection  by  the Commissioner is sought to be justified under this provision. These provisions are:,                      "336.  (  1 )  The  Commisioner   shall               sanction  the  erection of a building  or  the               execution  of a work unless such  building  or               work would contravene any of the provisions of               sub-section   (2)  of  this  section  or   the               provisions of section 340.                      (2)  The grounds on which the  sanction               of a building or work may be refused shall  be               the  following, namely :-                      (a)  that the building or work  or  the               use  of the site for the building or  work  or               any  of the particulars comprised in the  site               plan,  ground  plan,  elevation,  section   or               specification would contravene the  provisions               of  any byelaw made in this behalf or  of  any               other law or rule, byelaw or order made  under               such other law; 172 Sub-s.   (3)  of  s.  336  provides  for  the   Commissioner communicating  the sanction to the person who has given  the notice; and in cases where he refuses sanction on any of the grounds specified in subs. (2) of s. 336 or under s. 340, to record a brief statement of his reasons for such refusal and communication  of the refusal along with the reasons to  the party concerned.     It  will  be clear, from a perusal of s. 336,  that  the Commissioner  has  to give sanction for the  erection  of  a building or the execution of a work, unless such building or work would contravene any of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 336 or the provisions of s. 340.  Therefore, in order  to sustain the validity of the order of rejection passed by the Commissioner  the appellant  has  to establish, as it  seeks to,  that the proposed building or the use of the  site  for the  building,  by  the respondents,  would  contravene  the provisions of ’any other law’.  If the proposed building  or use  of  the  site for the  building  would  contravene  the provisions  of  any other law’, the Commissioner  has  ample powers  under  cl.  (a) of s.  336(2)  to  refuse  sanction. Section  340  gives  power to  the  Commissioner  to  refuse sanction  for erection of any building on either side  of  a new street, under the  circumstances  mentioned therein.     We  shall  now refer to some of the  provisions  of  the Development  Act in order to appreciate the scheme  of  that statute.   The Development Act is an Act to provide for  the development  of  Delhi  according to plan  and  for  matters ancillary  thereto. Section 2, clauses (d) and  (e),  define the   expressions  ’development’  and   ’development   area’ respectively.   Chapter II deals with the Delhi  Development Authority and its objects.  Section 3, therein, provides for the Central Government constituting for the purposes of  the Act  an  authority  to  be  called  the  Delhi   Development Authority.  It is referred to in the Act as  the  Authority. Section  5  provides  for  the  Authority  constituting   an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

Advisory  Council for the purpose of advising the  Authority on  the  preparation  of  the  Master  Plan  and  the  Zonal Development  Plans and on such other matters  in  connection with  the administration of the Act.  Such Advisory  Council also has been duly constituted.  Section 6 provides that the object  of the Authority shall be to promote and secure  the development  of  Delhi  according to plan  and  clothes  the Authority with the various powers mentioned therein.     Chapter III deals with Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans.   Section  7,  therein, provides  for  the  Authority carrying  out a civic survey of and preparing a Master  Plan for Delhi.  Under sub-s. (2), the Master Plan shall---                      (a) define the various zones into which               Delhi may      be divided for the purposes  of               development and indicate - the manner in which               the land in each zone is proposed 173               to  be  used  (whether  by  the  carrying  out               thereon  of development or otherwise) and  the               stages by which any such development shall  be               carried out; and                     (b)  serve as a basic pattern of  frame-               work within which the zonal development  plans               of the various zones may be prepared’. Section 8 provides for the preparation by the Authority of a zonal  development  plan for each of the  zones  into  which Delhi may be divided and also refers to the various  matters which  are  to  be  indicated in  the  same.   The  material provisions of s. 8 which, according to us, will have a vital bearing  in considering the soundness of the stand taken  by the appellant are as follows:                     "8.   (1  )  Simultaneously   with   the               preparation  of the master plan or as soon  as               may be thereafter, the Authority shall proceed               with the  preparation  of a  zonal development               plan  for each of the zones into  which  Delhi               may be divided.               (2) A Zonal Development Plan may--                      (a)  contain a site-plan  and  use-plan               for  the development of the zone and show  the               approximate locations and extents of land-uses               proposed in the zone for such things as public               buildings   and   other  .public   works   and               utilities,    roads,   housing,    recreation,               industry,    business,    markets,    schools,               hospitals  and public and private open  spaces               and  other  categories of public  and  private               uses;                      (d)  in particular, contain  provisions               regarding    all  or  any  of  the   following               matters, namely :--                      (ii)  the allotment or  reservation  of               land   for   roads,  open   spaces,   gardens,               recreation grounds, schools, markets and other               public purposes; Section  9  (1 ) states that the expression ’plan’  in  that section  and in ss. 10, 11, 12 and 14 means the Master  Plan as  well as the Zonal Development Plan for a  zone.   Sub-s. (2)  provides for the plan--which means the Master  Plan  as well  as the Zonal Development Plan--being  submitted  after preparation  by the Authority to the Central Government  for approval  and  it  also gives power  to  the  Government  to approve   the  plan,  without  modification  or  with   such modifications  as it may consider necessary, or  reject  the plan  with  directions to the Authority to prepare  a  fresh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

plan. 174 Section 10 provides for the procedure to be followed in  the preparation  and  approval  of plans.   A  perusal  of  that section shows that ample opportunity has to be provided  for persons  and every local authority to submit  objections  at the  stage of the draft, and it also requires the  authority to consider any objections, suggestions and  representations that  may have been made, before the final plan is  prepared and  submitted to the Central Government for  its  approval. It  also  empowers the Central Government to  call  for  any information that it thinks necessary from the Authority  for the  purpose of approving any plan submitted to it.  Section 11 provides for the date of operation of the plan.     There  is no controversy, in this case, that the  Master Plan  has  been  prepared under s. 7  by  the  Authority  on September  1,  1962  and it has also  come  into  force,  as contemplated  by  s.  11.  Though  s.  8  contemplates   the preparation of a Zonal Development Plan simultaneously  with the  preparation  of the Master Plan, or as soon as  may  be thereafter, no Zonal Development Plan for the zone concerned has  been  prepared up to now.  It may also be  pointed  out that  if  and when such a Plan is prepared,  containing  the various matters referred to in sub-s. (2) of s. 8, before it is  finalized  and  sent  to  the  Central  Government   for approval,  parties  and local authorities will  have  to  be given  an  opportunity  of  sending  their  objections   and suggestions  and representations, which have all to be  duly and properly considered by  the  Authority concerned.     Chapter  III-A  deals with modifications to  the  Master Plan  and  the  Zonal  Development  Plan.   Section  1  I-A, therein,  provides  for  the  Authority  and  the    Central Government   making modifications in the Master Plan or  the Zonal  Development Plan under the circumstances  and   after following  the  procedure, mentioned therein.     Chapter IV deals with development of lands.  Sub-s. (1 ) of  s.  12  gives  power  to  the  Central  Government,   by notification in the Official Gazette, to declare any area in Delhi to be a development area for the purposes of the  Act. Sub-s.  (2)  prohibits the Authority,  except  as  otherwise provided  for  in  the Act, to undertake or  carry  out  any development  of land in any area which is not a  development area.   Sub-s. (3) provides that after the  commencement  of the  Act  no  development of land  shall  be  undertaken  or carried  out in any area by any person or body (including  a department  of  Government) except in  the  manner  provided therein.     Section  14,  on which considerable  reliance  has  been placed, on behalf of the appellant, is as follows:       "14.  After  the coming into operation of any  of  the plans in a zone no person shall use or permit to be 175               used  any  land  or  building  in  that   zone               otherwise than in conformity with such plan:                    Provided  that  it  shall  be  lawful  to               continue to use upon such terms and conditions               as  may be prescribed by regulations  made  in               this  behalf  any  land or  building  for  the               purpose and to the extent for and to which  it               is being used upon the date on which such plan               comes into force."     A  copy  of the Master Plan for Delhi  has  been  placed before us by the learned Solicitor General.  Chapter I deals with the Land Use Plan under various sub-heads.  Chapter  II deals  with Zoning and Sub-division Regulations.  There  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

certain  maps  annexed  to  this  Plan.  Under  the  heading ’Proposed  rights  of way in Old City’, in paragraph  11  of Chapter I, item 7 refers to the area concerned, viz., Chawri Bazar.  Against  that it is stated that the road  from  Hauz Kazi to Jama Masjid, which is approximately 1,800 feet  long is recommended to have a road width of 60 feet. There is  no controversy  that the existing .road is only 48  feet  wide. Our  attention  has  also been invited to two  of  the  maps annexed  to  this Master Plan, viz. the Zonal  Map  and  the Proposed  Circulation  Pattern  of Walled City  and  it  was stated  that the area marked ’A’ in the Zonal Map refers  to the Walled City which is divided into 27 zones.  The  second map viz. the Proposed Circulation Pattern of Walled City, is an  enlargement of the area ’A’ shown in the Zonal  Map  and the Chawri Bazar is shown there.     As stated earlier, considerable reliance has been placed by  the  learned Solicitor General on the statement  in  the Master Plan that the road in Chawri Bazar is to have a width of  60 feet and on the two maps annexed to the  Master  Plan which,  according  to  him, will show the  lay  out  of  the proposed  road.  The Master Plan and the two maps relied  on by the appellant do not give any indication that any part of the land belonging to the respondents will be covered by any portion of the proposed road.  The provisions of s. 7 of the Development  Act clearly indicate--and that is borne out  by the  various matters mentioned in the Master  Plan-that  the Master Plan will only give a very broad outline of DeLhi  as it will look in future. Though there is an obligation on the Authority   to   prepare   the   Zonal   Development    Plan simultaneously  with the preparation of the Master Plan,  or as   soon  as  there  may  be  thereafter,  no  such   Zonal Development   Plan   has   been   prepared.   That   assumes considerable importance in this case because it is the Zonal Development  Plan,  under  s. 8(2)(a) which  will  show  the approximate locations and extents of land-uses proposed in a zone  for roads; further, under sub-cl. (ii) of cl.  (d)  of sub-s.  (2)  of s. 8, the said Zonal Development  Plan  will also   contain   provision  regarding   the   allotment   or reservation  of  land  for  roads.  It  is  only  when  such allotment  or reservation of land for roads is made that  it will be possible to know clearly as to which part of 176 a  person’s  land and what portion thereof  is  allotted  or reserved  for  a  road.   If  such  an  indication  is  made available  by  the Zonal Development Plan, then s.  14  will quite naturally stand attracted, because any user of a  land or  building  otherwise than in conformity  with  the  Zonal Development  Plan  will  be hit by  that  section.   In  the absence of any indication in the Master Plan, in this  case, that any part of the land of the respondents will be covered by a road, or portion of a road it is not possible to accept the  contention of the learned Solicitor General that  there will be any violation of s. 14 of the Development Act if the respondents  be permitted to use the land, as. asked for  by them. To attract s. 14, the appellant will have to establish that any land or part of a land or a building in a Zone  has been  dealt with in a particular manner by the  Master  Plan and  that it is proposed to be used in a  different  manner. If  a  Zonal  Development Plan is prepared  for  the   area, before  it comes into operation in the Zone,  the  procedure indicated in s. 10 will have to be followed and parties will have to be given an opportunity of placing any objections or making any representations or offering any suggestions.   So far  as  we can see, it is certainly not the scheme  of  the Development Act that the moment a Master Plan has come  into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

operation and if it contains a proposal regarding the  width that a road should have, all use of land adjoining that road is  prohibited  for an indefinite  period.   The  reasonable interpretation  to  be placed on s. 14 will be that  if  any particular and definite use of land is indicated in a Master Plan,  a  different use of that land  cannot  be  permitted. Similarly,  if  a  Zonal Development  Plan  provides  for  a particular use of any land or any building in that zone,  it cannot  be put to a different use.  If neither of the  plans provide  for the particular use of any land or  building  in the   area  or  Zone,  s.  14  will  have  no.   application whatsoever. We  have already stated that the respondents’ lands are  not in any manner indicated as being taken up by any part of the proposed road, mentioned in the Master Plan and, if that  is so,  there is no violation of s. 14 of the Development  Act. It  .also  follows that there is no violation of  ’any  law’ under  cl.  (a) of sub-s. (2) of s. 316 of  the  Corporation Act.     The   High  Court  was  perfectly  justified,   in   the circumstances, in issuing the writ of  mandamus.  The result is that the  appeal fails, and is dismissed.  The  appellant will pay the costs of the respondents. y.p.                                       Appeal dismissed. 177